"Alliances of Equals" in history and AH

In world diplomacy, both in the past and today, a lot of so-called alliances will use inspirational rhetoric about how all members of the alliance are equal, but it's clear that they really consist of one, or maybe two, nations dictating most of the terms. The rest of the members of the alliance are treated as colonies, or at best, junior partners whose influence over major policy decisions is far smaller would be appropriate to their population. But surely, there must be some international alliances that are not this exploitative, right? I got to wondering about what's the closest the world has come to the sort of idealized view of an alliance, where the member nations are about roughly equal in strength, the alliance lasts a fairly long time rather than just for one military campaign, and the alliance is close enough so that the nations generally consider themselves allies rather than just neutral toward each other, but the countries have not become so intertwined that the world sees them as a single country. This thread is for discussing real and fictional examples of alliances that came close to this idea, and for speculating on what other alliances like this could plausibly have developed in other timelines, and what the consequences for the world would be.

To make the conditions more precise, the group of 2 or more nations must meet all of the following conditions:
  • If there are 2 countries, then neither country can make up more than 2/3 of the combined population or industrial output of the alliance (and by industrial output, I mean something like, how much stuff can the country produce in a year, measured based on some sort of labor theory of value) Note: if this is way too strict, then you can relax the rule to 3/4 or 4/5
  • If there are 3 or more, then the country with the highest population must be no more than twice as populous as the country with the 2nd highest, and the same goes for industrial output.
  • They must be independent enough that no well-informed, truthful scholar or diplomat from some other country would ever seriously argue that any of the countries in question is a mere province, colony, or puppet.
  • They must have acknowledged one another. Groups of countries that are complete strangers to each other don't qualify even if they share a common enemy.
  • They must never have gone to war with each other during the time they are allied. Not even proxy wars or under-the-table assassinations or anything like that.
  • They must have cooperated in at least one war or joint military action.
  • They have to meet all of these conditions for at least 30 consecutive years. The longer, the better.
 
I wanna say the anti-napoleon coalitions. Specifically Prussia, Austria, Britain and Russia. Britain might've been the "leading power," but it was the others who forced france back into france. Britain's job was too keep them in the fight, sorta like the usa in the world wars
 
A hypothetical anti-Russian alliance of England and Germany in the early 1900s would have been between equals, the two most powerful nations in Europe, one dominant on land, the other ruling the seas. Italy is likely along for the ride, as well, since they were friendly with Prussia before the German Empire was even founded, but they're clearly a minor partner.

The logical following alliance of France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia is also relatively balanced, with Austria-Hungary not far behind France and Russia, who are themselves reasonably equal.
 
A hypothetical anti-Russian alliance of England and Germany in the early 1900s would have been between equals, the two most powerful nations in Europe, one dominant on land, the other ruling the seas. Italy is likely along for the ride, as well, since they were friendly with Prussia before the German Empire was even founded, but they're clearly a minor partner.

The logical following alliance of France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia is also relatively balanced, with Austria-Hungary not far behind France and Russia, who are themselves reasonably equal.
Yeah, that would be an interesting scenario to explore. I wonder what it would take in the late 1800s or early 1900s to convince British leaders into pursuing friendlier relations with Germany, and a more hostile stance toward France and Russia. Maybe France and Britain get into a disagreement over their territories in Africa and Southeast Asia? Likewise, maybe British-Russian rivalries over spheres of influence in China and Japan lead to an escalation of hostility?

I recommend reading this post written by @John7755 يوحنا not too long ago.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-over-austria-hungary.493066/#post-20830896

The thread was about a hypothetical alliance between Germany and Russia in the pre-Great War era rather than with Austria-Hungary. John's analysis is quite detailed and he discusses the nature of alliances and provides a few other historical examples which might provide some insight into the OP's question.
Thanks! Sounds perfect!
 
Top